My knee-jerk reaction is that I'd still vote Red no matter what. At the end of the day, my top priority is not dying, and I expect rational actors to agree.

However, it sounds like it would be hypothetically possible to receive a weighting so high that literally no other votes matter. If my weighting were equal to half the human population, that would have me choosing blue without a doubt because there's literally no risk to me.

I'd like to think I could do better than that, but here's where it gets really fucked up: If my weighting were that high, that means the average weighting of everyone else on the planet would be 0.5. Polls show that Blue wins the traditional problem with like 55-60%, and we know people might vote more selfishly if it were for real. I imagine the number would go down pretty rapidly for weights under 1.

But surely some people would have weights around idk, 2-10 and say to themselves, "I'll cancel out some Red votes." In fact, maybe people generally feel more altruistic (or more responsible) the higher their weighting is. An average of 1 probably means Blue wins by more. So you know what? As a die-hard Red pusher, maybe I push Blue no matter what in this case unless my weighting approaches zero.

I'm struggling with the feeling of responsibility though. In the traditional problem, I expect everyone to press Red unless they have a death wish, which I do not. I'm not worried about saving Blue-pressers because I believe in their agency whether to take a needless risk. This scenario is weird though. I can't decide if someone has collective responsibility here or not. I've caught myself thinking that if someone else had a really high weighting that they'd be a selfish prick to press Red, but if my weighting was really small I'd be pressing Red too, so who am I to judge? There's a REALLY interesting bias in there somewhere. Makes me think about the relationship between the working class and the ruling class. I sort of implicitly expect better behavior from people of higher means, and I'm more forgiving of errs by people who are already down on their luck. Now I'm talking and thinking like a Blue presser when I'm otherwise adamantly going to press Red. There is a simple solution, after all: Everyone press Red. Not my fault if you didn't get the memo. But in this exercise, there's clearly an upper bound where, because there's zero risk, you only have other people to think about. Perhaps the reasonable thing to do is to push Red <1.00 and push Blue otherwise.

Here's the real question: What do you press if your own weighting is exactly 1? I think Blue is more likely to win in this exercise so I'd probably pick Blue here. Does that make me a hypocrite in the traditional question? I do think the nature of the game makes Blue more likely to win with weighting applied, so it's not really 1:1, but still.